The
Criminal and the CommunityPart III - Chapter IV - Variations in Routine

THE system makes no provision for individual
differences between prisoners and takes no account of the past
training which has made them what they are, but it recognises
physical differences. It is the duty of the Medical Officer to see
that no one is overtaxed or underfed or insufficiently clothed, and
to attend to any sickness that occurs. If a prisoner is insane he is
removed to a lunatic asylum. If he is ill he is put under treatment.

In the majority of cases the prison hospitals are
simply larger and better-lit cells. They are free from anything but
the roughest imitation of modern hospital appliances; but as there
is no occasion for the treatment in them of prisoners suffering from
acute serious illness, they are sufficient for the needs they are
required to meet. What is required for the treatment of such as are
sick is not so much stone and lime as flesh and blood. Not new
hospitals, but trained nurses.

When a prisoner is reported sick or asks to see the
doctor, he is automatically freed from the ordinary rules. If the
medical man decides that there is nothing in his condition to
warrant his being put on the sick list he falls back under prison
discipline. If, however, he requires medical treatment, the Medical
Officer may prescribe any regimen which he considers applicable to
the case, and the Governor has the instructions carried out. It may
broadly be stated that cases requiring the constant attendance of a
skilled nurse and those demanding serious operative treatment do not
need to be treated in Scottish prisons. Section 72 of the Prisons
(Scotland) Act, 1877, enables the Governor, in certain cases, to
petition the Sheriff for a warrant to remove sick prisoners to
hospitals outside. He must present two medical certificates to the
effect that the prisoner (1) is suffering from a disease which
threatens immediate danger to life and cannot be treated in prison,
or (2) a disease which makes his removal necessary for the health of
the other inmates of the prison, or (3) that continued confinement
would endanger his life. This is one of the wisest provisions in the
Act. Cases might occur in which the treatment required would be of
such a character as to make it inadvisable to have it carried out in
prison.

Assuming that there is no difference in the
experience and skill of the prison doctors and their staff from that
of the corresponding officials in the general hospital, the
conditions in prison are essentially different. In a general
hospital there are all sorts of people as patients, and their
friends have access to them ; it is a public place compared with the
prison. The staff is subjected to continual criticism; not always
enlightened, and sometimes unfair, but it exercises a healthy effect
on their actions. There is no greater danger to the public than the
uncontrolled specialist; and it is a bad thing for him if he is led
into any belief either in the infallibility of his judgment, or in
its necessary applicability to the case with which he deals. He can
perform no operation without the consent of the patient or his
friends, even though he believe that operation is necessary to the
saving of life. There are cases in which this permission is refused
in spite of all the persuasions of the medical man; and in some of
these cases, contrary to expectation, the patient gets well. In
others death takes place where life might have been saved had
consent to the necessary treatment been obtained ; yet it would be
an intolerable condition of affairs if the medical man were to have
his patients placed at the discretion of his judgment; and no one
would propose that the inmates of a hospital should be compelled to
submit to any treatment that the doctors in their wisdom might see
fit to prescribe.

In a neighbouring country lately the question of
compulsory treatment was raised. All the information I have with
regard to it has been obtained from the statements, official and
otherwise, which have been published. These statements may have been
imperfect, but only from them can the public form an opinion, The
statements contradict each other, and as they refer to incidents
which took place in a prison—a place to which ordinary members of
the public have no access—they are bound to leave an uneasy feeling
in the mind of the impartial observer.

Certain women, impelled by the desire to advance a
political measure, engaged in conduct which brought them into
conflict with the authorities. It was claimed on their behalf that
they had committed a political offence, and in that respect differed
from other criminals; but all offences are political offences.
Whether a woman strikes a man because she is angry with him, or
because she is angry with a Cabinet Minister whom she does not know,
she commits an assault which is a crime in the eyes of the law. Her
motive may differ in the one case from the other, but its issue has
no difference; and in both cases, in so far as the State takes
notice of it, it is a political offence. Distinctions between
offences can only end in confusion; distinctions between offenders
have never been sufficiently recognised; and no real progress can
ever be made in the treatment of the criminal until the differences
between one person and another are taken into account. There can be
no question that in character, in training, and in their previous
history, these women differed widely from the ordinary prisoner, and
all the trouble which resulted was due to the failure of those in
authority to act upon their knowledge of this fact. That the conduct
for which many of the women were sent to prison was unreasonable,
few will deny; but it was no more unreasonable than the treatment
they received. If they behaved like mad people, so did the
officials.

The only way in which one person can show greater
wisdom than another is by conduct. If the women were hysterical, the
officials did not exactly shine as examples of calmness. The highly
strung person who glories in what she believes to be martyrdom, who
sees everything in the light of her own ideals, is not likely to be
brought to another frame of mind by receiving the treatment which
she regards as persecution. These women had made it necessary that
they should be restrained from annoying others by their conduct; but
it mattered nothing to the public that they should be restrained in
a certain way; what did matter was that the nuisance should be
effectively stopped. That the method of dealing with them increased
the trouble is beyond question; and there is no justification for
interference with anybody except in so far as the method adopted has
the result desired.

It is folly, if not worse, to enter upon any course
that cannot be carried on indefinitely. If your treatment fails to
achieve the end aimed at, that is bad ; if it results in the person
with whom you are dealing beating you, that is worse. The law
attempted to frighten the women, and the women, by their continued
resistance, frightened the administrators of the law. Which
presented the most sorry spectacle it is hard to say.

The trouble seems to have begun through the refusal
on the part of the authorities to allow the women to wear their own
clothing. What harm it would have done to anybody to grant this
permission it is difficult to see. If they had fed themselves and
clothed themselves it would have saved expense to the public. They
believed that the clothing was intended to degrade them; and they
might have asked, if that was not the intention, why was the
proceeding insisted on? Of course, to permit them to save the State
the expense of keeping them while they were in custody would have
upset the system; but the system is far from being considered by
those who are responsible for its administration to be anything
approaching perfection, for it is a fashionable thing amongst them
to ask for its improvement, and to justify changes, when they make
them, on the ground that they were required. Opposition grew with
repression; unreason provoked unreason, and the public heard with
considerable uneasiness that a hunger strike was taking place, and
that the strikers were being artificially fed.

In certain physical diseases resort to artificial
feeding may be necessary, but prisoners suffering from these
diseases are not fit for prison discipline and should be treated in
a hospital outside. Among the insane are those who obstinately
refuse to take food, and therefore require to be fed; but an insane
person differs from a prisoner in this important respect, that in
the eyes of the law he is free from responsibility and has no will
of his own. His friends are permitted access to him. They may, and
sometimes do, interfere with the discretion of the medical
attendant, and in any case his actions are within their supervision
and criticism.

Medical men assume that self-preservation is a primal
instinct, and that the person who deliberately sets out to maim
himself or to destroy his life is insane, even although
intellectually he may appear to be quite sound. If a man become
possessed by religious zeal and set out to convert his neighbours to
his views, he may incidentally be a considerable nuisance to them.
He may stand at street corners and annoy the surrounding inhabitants
by his exhortation; but, in Glasgow at any rate, they put up with
this on account of the good intention they ascribe to him. If,
however, he gives up his business, and prevents other people from
attending to theirs by calling on them and arguing with them, people
begin to suspect his sanity; and the man who would throw a brick
into another’s office at the risk of hurting some of the people
employed there, in order to convince their principal that if he did
not accept the religion the missionary preached he would go to hell,
would probably be dealt with as a lunatic. The conduct of some of
the women was quite as eccentric, but people may do insane-like
things without being insane. That, however, is no reason for
disregarding their eccentricities, which should be taken into
account when dealing with them. If the women required to be fed
artificially, it by no means follows that it was a proper thing to
do so in prison. It certainly was indiscreet, and it is difficult to
see how, if it was justifiable to resort to this measure in order to
save the life of a prisoner, it could be argued that a medical
officer would not be equally justified in cutting off the injured or
diseased arm of a prisoner, in spite of his protestations, in order
to save his life. It is one thing to place the liberties of men, and
another thing altogether to place their lives in the hands of
officials.

There is no official and no number of officials— by
whatever name called—good enough to be entrusted, unchecked by
public observation, with the lives of their fellow-citizens; and
there is no criminal bad enough to be immured from the public gaze
and placed wholly under the control of anyone. It is not that the
officials are bad; they are no worse than unofficial persons and no
better, and there is far more danger from those who have gained a
reputation for humanity and for enlightened opinions, even when they
have deserved the reputation, than from the others, because the
former are likely to be left more to themselves on account of their
good name. Few who read this could be trusted to do as good a day’s
work at the end of the year as they did at the beginning, if there
were not someone to check and criticise them.

Here and there, now and then, there are violent
outcry and excitement because of some administrative scandal, and
there is seldom much in it; but there is no continued and
intelligent interest in administration on the part of the public. If
a man do not fulfil his contract his employer may accept an excuse
once or even twice; but if his failure continue he will find himself
out of a job, and someone less incompetent or unfortunate will be
sought and put in his place. In the public service excuses and
exceptions are so much the rule that it would be easy to form a
library of blue books containing them, printed and paid for at the
public expense.

Only ordinary cases of domestic sickness need be
treated in prison, and such ailments or injuries as are dealt with
in the outdoor department of a general hospital. In Scotland there
is little inducement to prisoners to feign sickness, as there is no
automatic change in their diet or location as a result of their
being placed on the sick list. The doctor may or may not remove them
from their cells and alter their diet. So far as the Act of
Parliament is concerned the treatment of the sick lies wholly in his
discretion, and there is no power granted to any authority to
interfere with or overturn his decision. He may be questioned as to
the reason for his conduct; and if foolish enough or weak enough to
be persuaded into altering it, in order to please some higher
official, he may do so ; but the Act of Parliament is absolutely
specific in the matter, and refers the sick not to the
Commissioners, but to the surgeon of the prison.

It is much easier for a man to carry out an
instruction received from above, than to assert and act on the
powers conferred on him by statute ; but it is not right to do so,
and in so far as he is subservient he is unfaithful to his trust.
Patients cannot be treated by correspondence. No man, however highly
placed, is infallible. Better that the man on the spot should accept
his responsibilities frankly, even though he do make mistakes, than
that he should look to someone who is not present to direct him in a
case of difficulty. No medical man need want for help from his
neighbours, and he can easily get someone of approved skill to
assist him in the diagnosis or treatment of a difficult case. It is
quite proper that his actions should be scrutinised, but it is quite
wrong that the scrutiny should take place in private. The statute
has recognised this principle, and has ordered that a public enquiry
should take place on the occasion of the death of any prisoner in
prison. The relatives of the prisoner are there entitled to put any
questions to the officials, personally or through an agent; and the
Sheriff has to be satisfied that all reasonable care and skill have
been exercised in the case.

Private official enquiries give opportunity for petty
persecution on tho part of any Jack-in-office who fancies his
abilities are equal to his position, and whose spleen may be raised
against better men than himself. No man eminent in his profession
would bo likely to be guilty of such conduct, but the occupation of
some positions does not necessarily imply professional eminence,
though it may infer social influence.

The Medical Officer has not an arduous task in
treating the sick. His work practically consists of patching up old
offenders, in the knowledge that he is prolonging their lives and
their uselessness, to the injury of the public. Many of them would
have been dead long ago as the result of their excesses had they not
been interfered with. It is well that their lives should be
prolonged and their health improved, but only if some security is
taken that they use their powers to better purpose in the future
than they have done in the past. There is no sense in the State
doing anything for anybody without a reasonable guarantee, that the
person benefited will not use the benefit to the injury of the
community. Many are cured of diseases in various public
institutions, and turned loose to live on others for the rest of
their lives. There is an increasing number of young people who,
having suffered from some serious illness, have been saved from
death, but have been left permanently crippled to some extent in one
or other of their organs. They are not fit for the work they once
engaged in, but they are fit for some work, and so far as can be
seen, they have no intention of performing any. A number of them
drift to the prison and on the strength of their infirmity try to
get special treatment. The special treatment they require cannot be
had there, nor is there any place at present where it can be had.

The untried prisoner is permitted to wear his own
clothing, provided it is clean and that he can have it changed with
sufficient frequency. He may hire furniture and pay for the cleaning
of his cell. He may have visits from those of his friends he desires
to see; and he may correspond with them, provided that in the
conversation and correspondence there is nothing said or written
regarding the charge against him. All letters to and from him are
read and censored on behalf of the Governor. Prisoners are not
allowed to see and converse with their friends without the presence
of a prison official. The prisoner is put in a box with a latticed
front, and his visitor is placed in another box opposite. Between
the two boxes there is space for a warder to move. He can see the
occupants of both boxes, each of whom can only see the person in the
box opposite. When a number of prisoners are having visitors at the
same time, there is a shouting and gabbling that makes conversation
difficult. Convicted prisoners and convicts of the first class may
receive a letter and a visit from a friend once in three months,
provided their conduct and industry have been satisfactory. Before
their entry into the first class convicts may receive one, two, or
three letters and visits in the year, according to the class they
have reached. After being a year in the first class they may be
placed in a special class, receiving a letter and a visit once in
two months.

The prisoner sees his agent in view of but outwith
the hearing of the warder. He may have his food sent in to him by
his friends, provided it is sufficient in quality and amount, but he
may not have part of a meal sent in. He may also receive newspapers,
magazines, or books. Any or all of these privileges may be granted
or withdrawn at the discretion of the Visiting Committee. It is
questionable whether it is right that they should be granted as
privileges. The man is, in the eyes of the law, presumed to be
innocent of the offence charged against him; and his detention is
only justifiable on the ground that he might fail to appear at court
for trial. That being so, he ought not to require permission from
any committee or official before he is allowed to feed, clothe, and
amuse himself; and he should only be prevented from doing so if his
act is detrimental to his own health or that of the other inmates of
the prison. This might cause more trouble to the officials
concerned, but the primary object of the system ought not to be the
saving them trouble.

The untried prisoner may have a pint of wine or a
pint of beer daily, but on no account is he permitted to smoke. This
is a curious restriction nowadays, and there is not the faintest
show of reason for its exercise. The proper attitude towards the
untried prisoner is not that implied in the question “Why should he
be allowed to do this?” The question ought always to be “Why should
he not be allowed to do what he wishes?” and this would be the
question if the theory that presumes an untried prisoner’s innocence
were put in practice. He is detained for the convenience of the
public, not for his own, and his liberty should be curtailed as
little as possible consistent with good order.

There are very few civil prisoners in Scotland.
Failure to pay aliment may entail on a prisoner imprisonment, at the
instance and expense of his creditor, for a period of six weeks. At
the end of that time the prisoner is free from similar proceedings
for six months, but the costs are added to his original debt. He has
some of the privileges of an untried prisoner. Failure to pay taxes
may cause a man to be imprisoned under similar conditions. Persons
sent to prison for failing to have their children vaccinated are
treated by the same rule, and persons condemned to indefinite
imprisonment for contempt of court.

In Scotland we claim that we do not imprison for debt
other than aliment, rates, or taxes ; but the rule is evaded by
process of law, and the Prison Commissioners are used as debt
collectors in some cases. Technically this is not so, but in
practice it occurs. X31, a woman, has obtained jewellery on the
hire-purchase system. She is the wife of a labouring man, and there
is room for the suspicion that she has been tempted by the seller. A
number of payments are made, then the husband loses his employment,
and she is not only cut off from the means of paying her instalments,
but has not money to get food. She pawns or otherwise disposes of
the jewellery, and is called upon either to pay for it or return it.
Her intention may be to pay, but she is not able. She is summoned to
appear at Court, and fails to do so. In her absence a decree is
granted ordaining her to deliver the jewellery to the person from
whom she obtained it, in terms of the contract made between them.
Failing to do this, she is seized and carried off to prison, on a
warrant obtained for Contempt of Court, inasmuch as she had not
obeyed its decree. All her friends become alarmed, and by their
united efforts the money to satisfy the creditor may be obtained. If
this is not done she may be kept in prison for an indefinite period
at his expense. Had she contracted a debt with the grocer for food,
or with a dressmaker for clothing, they could not have imprisoned
her if she did not pay them, even though they desired to do so. They
are thus at a serious disadvantage, so far as the exercise of
pressure is concerned, compared with the hire-purchase trader; but
the ingenious among them who regret the abolition of imprisonment
for debt may revive it in effect by selling groceries and clothes on
a hire-purchase contract.

The routine treatment to which the convict is
subjected is much more severe than that which is applied to the
ordinary prisoner, and it does as little good. [The diet for
convicts is more generous than that for ordinary prisoners, however.
Male convicts whose conduct and industry have been satisfactory may
be liberated on license when three-fourths of their sentence has
been served. Female convicts in like circumstances may be liberated
on license after serving two-thirds of their sentence.] It is a
system of repression mainly; a sitting on the safety-valve that is
apt to provoke outbursts of temper and violence resulting in
assault. These may be punished with the lash. A power which is not
possessed by the Judges of the High Court is granted to the Prison
Commissioners. It is considered necessary in order to maintain the
system, but as no one claims that the system is in any degree
reformatory, it becomes a question whether it is worth maintaining.

The same man who is at one time a convicted prisoner
in an ordinary prison may at another time be undergoing penal
servitude. While he is in an ordinary prison there is neither power
nor occasion to order him the severe punishments which may be
inflicted on convicts. If he need the lash when he is sent to penal
servitude, there is at least the presumption that the cause lies as
much in the character of the life he is compelled to lead as in the
character of the man. The more punishment inflicted on prisoners in
a prison the stronger the probability is that the place is badly
managed. Repression is necessary, no doubt, but repressive powers
should only co-exist with power to reward. Even a donkey will go
further after a carrot than when driven by a stick. It never does
any good to a man to treat him as a machine, and the tendency to do
so under the name of discipline is a root vice of the system. In the
convict prison, as in the ordinary prison, during the last few years
the grinding mechanical routine has been relaxed, and the amazing
discovery has been made that it is easier and better to manage men
if you recognise that they are men than to regard them as mere
numbers. There has even been talk of reformation resulting from the
changes that have taken place, and to judge by some magazine and
newspaper articles from the pens of enthusiastic and ignorant
visitors, one would think the prison had become a kind of paradise.

That other men’s behaviour towards us will largely be
determined on our behaviour towards them is no new discovery, and
that more considerate treatment by officials should result in better
conduct on the part of prisoners need surprise no one; but that this
better conduct necessarily implies that they will live in conformity
with the laws when liberated does not follow at all. You may improve
a man’s conduct in prison as you may improve his mental condition in
a lunatic asylum, but you never know how he will behave outside
until you put him there ; and if we acted on the knowledge of this
fact we should see that persons liberated from any institution are
placed in proper positions outside—that they should be guided and
helped in so far as they need guidance and help— so that there would
be less excuse for their recurring to their old habits and conduct,
and less chance of their relapse into the condition and actions for
which we have dealt with them.

Of late years short sentences have been generally
denounced on the ground that there is no time to reform a prisoner
who is only under the influence of the system for a few days. This
would be a reasonable objection if those who are sent to prison for
long periods were thereby made better, but that is precisely what
cannot be shown; for the longer a person is in prison the less fit
he is on liberation to take his place in the community. So that if
short sentences are bad, long sentences are worse, from the
standpoint of the reformer. A person sent to prison for a few days
is usually the cleaner for his experience. Imprisonment has kept him
off the streets for a time. It has also caused him to lose his job,
and, as usually the short-time prisoner is not a person of means,
his position is worse after his imprisonment than it was before. He
has to earn his living by his work, if he would avoid coming into
conflict with the law; and if he has no means of livelihood it is
easy to see that he will find it difficult to avoid recommittal.

In this respect the long-sentence prisoner resembles
him, but in addition he has acquired habits in prison that are a
hindrance to him outside.

This comment system requires
you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an
account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or
Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these
companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All
comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator
has approved your comment.